EnvisionSupplCCmtg11-18-24(klk)
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
N
ovember 18, 2024
T
O: City Council
F
ROM: Department of Environmental Services
S
UBJECT: A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ENVISION SIMI VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-S-2024-0002) TO CREATE A COMMUNITY VISION
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AREAS OF LOS ANGELES AVENUE AND
TAPO STREET, INCLUDING NEW HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL
OPPORTUNITIES; A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA- 2024-0002) TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP AND RELATED GENERAL PLAN TEXT; ZONE CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS (Z -S-2024-0002) TO THE SIMI
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE THE EXISTING OVERLAY
DISTRICTS AND REPLACE THEM WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN;
ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
SUBJECT PROJECT; AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AND
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
S
ubsequent to the preparation and distribution of the staff report, staff discovered that two attachments to Exhibit 1 – September 4, 2024 Planning Commission Resolution, Draft Minutes, Staff Report, and Supplemental Staff Reports were not included. The Simi Valley Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan Areas – Fiscal Benefits Memo and Neighborhood Council #1, #2, #4 and #4 Summaries are attached. ___
_________________________________
Stratis Perros
Environmental Services Director
P
repared by: Naren Gunasekera, Principal Planner
INDEX
A
ttachment A: The Simi Valley Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan Areas - Fiscal Benefits Memo
Attachment B: Neighborhood Council Development Review Summaries #1, #2, #3 and #4
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA ITEM NO.
5A
1 MEMO
To: Orlando Gonzalez, Gruen Associates
From: Bill Lee and Tanya Chiranakhon, LEG
Date: September 25, 2023
Re: Simi Valley, Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan Areas – Fiscal Benefits
Introduction
This memorandum presents a fiscal impact analysis for net new development that would be induced by the adoption of the Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan and Tapo Street Specific Plan.
This analysis estimates the fiscal implications to the City of Simi Valley’s General Fund, as it is the primary source of unrestricted discretionary funding for municipal services.
Summary of Findings
The analysis focuses specifically on the direct impact to the General Fund from the net new development induced by adoption of these two Specific Plans over the next two decades, through 2043. Induced development in both the Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan areas are projected to have greater annual revenues than expenditures, resulting in a net positive fiscal surplus.
For new development induced by adoption of the Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan, the net fiscal impact is estimated to be $19,100 annually by 2033, and $344,400 annually by 2043. The resulting annual impact on the General Fund induced by the Tapo Street Specific Plan is estimated at $161,800 by 2033, and $585,600 by 2043. The net one-year fiscal impacts in 2033 and 2043 are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 2. The combined annual fiscal surplus from induced development in both Specific Plan areas over the next 20 years, from 2023 through
ATTACHMENT A
2 2
2043, are presented in Figure 2, below. The net present value of 20 years of projected fiscal surplus amounts to $3.73 million. This net present value calculation is based upon an inflation forecast of 3.5 percent annually for the next 20 years and a discount rate of 4 percent over this period1.
Table 1: Summary of Fiscal Impact from Difference in Net New Development with Specific Plan Adoption Figure 1: Simi Valley Net General Fund Impact with Specific Plan Adoption for Selected Years 1 The Muni Master Rate in the Wall Street Journal published on August 17, 2023, was 3.462 percent. (Estimates are in Current Year Dollars Using a 3.5% Annual Rate of Inflation) Annual Impact
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area Total
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area Total
Estimated General Fund Revenue Impact 35,659$ 312,440$ 348,099$ 527,236$ 995,716$ 1,522,951$ Estimated Gerenal Fund Expenditure Impact (16,512)$ (150,613)$ (167,126)$ (182,810)$ (410,088)$ (592,898)$ Net City of Simi Valley General Fund Impact 19,146$ 161,826$ 180,973$ 344,425$ 585,628$ 930,053$ Net Present Value of Cumulative Fiscal Impact from 2023 to 2043* $3,727,498 * A 4% annual discount rate was applied. The Wall Street Journal Muni Master Rate on August 17, 2023 was 3.462% Source: Land Econ Group
2033 2043
$19,146
$344,425
$161,826
$585,628
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
2033 2043
Los Angeles Ave SP Area Tapo Street SP Area
3 3
Additionally, the value of other properties around the new developments are likely to grow. As the properties turn over, their assessed value will increase significantly and generate additional property tax revenue. Because of the challenges of estimating this secondary effect, it has not been included in this fiscal analysis. For this reason, this direct fiscal impact analysis likely understates the overall revenue impact on the City's General Fund.
Figure 2: Total Net General Fund Fiscal Surplus with Specific Plan Adoption
The new population accommodated by the adoption of these two Specific Plans will also contribute to the regional economy, providing much needed workforce for local businesses and institutions. With the adoption of the Specific Plans, the additional 1,050 housing units will house approximately 2,348 additional population. With an estimated 2023 Simi Valley per capita income of $50,0002, the added income would amount to $117 million. Using a conservative multiplier of 1.7 to account for the recirculation of the expenditures from this income, the benefit to the regional economy would amount to nearly $200 million. Certainly, not all of this benefit would accrue to Simi Valley. The primary area of benefit would include most of Ventura County and the western portion of Los Angeles County.
The additional housing development provides important social benefits as well. Employees who work in Simi Valley, like teachers, fire fighters and workers in the newly developed industrial and warehousing buildings will have a better opportunity to find suitable housing locally and thereby
2 The US Census of per capita income for Simi Valley for 2017-2021 in 2021 dollars was $45,416. $0 $18 $36 $54 $72 $90 $109 $127 $145 $163 $181
$256
$331
$406
$481
$556
$630
$705
$780
$855
$930
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
Nominal Annual Surplus ($ thousands)
4 4
reducing commute distances and time related stress on family life. In addition, the children of long-standing Simi Valley families will enjoy more housing options to remain in town should they select to do so.
Overview of Methodology
The fiscal impact analysis uses a combination of techniques to estimate the increase in revenues and expenditures. Where possible, the increases in revenues and expenditures are modeled following the manner in which they are collected and allocated, referred to as the “Development” methodology. For example, increases in property tax revenues are based on an estimate of the increase in assessed valuation associated with a given development project. In other cases, where this type of detailed modeling is not possible due to lack of adequate data, LEG utilized revenue and cost multipliers that represent the average per service population, based on actual figures for fiscal year 2021-2022 reported in the City of Simi Valley Annual Comprehensive Financial Report 2021-22, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022. This methodology applies current fiscal conditions and municipal service levels to anticipate future costs upon completion and operation. Generally, this methodology presents a reasonably conservative analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the planned for development.
In addition to applying development-based or service population-based estimates of General Fund revenues and expenditures, certain municipal line-item revenues or costs vary more with growth and development than others. For example, on the expenditures side, Community Services (Library, Senior Services, Youth Services, Cultural Arts Center, and Council on Aging) and Public Safety (primarily Police and Fire Protection) expenditures vary more with population growth than Public Ways and Facilities costs. Therefore, percentages of fixed and variable factors were included in the analysis of the major line items. The allocation of fixed versus variable cost of revenue components varies from city to city, and our estimates for Simi Valley are based upon the experience of doing fiscal analysis for cities in California for over five decades. In addition, these allocations were vetted by City administrative staff.
To generate the fiscal impact model, LEG relied on information from Simi Valley’s financial reports and input from city staff to estimate revenues and expenditures that could result from the new development. All results of the analysis are presented in current year dollars for the year reported unless otherwise noted. An annual inflation rate of 3.5 percent has been assumed for the next 20 years.
5 5
Difference in Net New Development with Specific Plan Adoption LEG estimated two sets of land use and land development assumptions for each of the two Specific Plan areas over the next two decades, from 2023 to 2033 and from 2033 to 2043. The first is the number of new housing units and square footage of retail, office and industrial development that can be expected over the period without any of the planning and policy incentives from the Specific Plans. The second set of assumptions outlines the amount of development that can be expected with adoption of the two Specific Plans. The difference between these two sets of assumptions represents the development induced by adoption of the Specific Plans, presented in Table 2. The fiscal analysis focuses on this induced development to estimate just the impact of the two Specific Plans on the City’s General Fund.
The development assumptions were estimated by referencing densities and realistic development capacities from the Housing Element of the General Plan and by identifying redevelopment “opportunity sites” within each of the Specific Plan areas. The adoption of the Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan is estimated to induce an additional thirty housing units by 2033 and 230 housing units, plus 45,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space and 80,000 square feet of office space by 2043. The adoption of the Tapo Street Specific Plan is estimated to induce an additional 270 housing units by 2033 and 520 housing units, plus 30,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space by 2043. Over the next 20 years, both Specific Plans combined are expected to induce 1,050 new housing units, 75,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space and 80,000 square feet of office space.
6 6
Table 2: Net New Development in the Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan Areas
When occupied the 1,050 new housing units will add an estimated 2,348 new residents and 490 new employees by 2043, as shown in Table 3. The fiscal analysis uses these new residents and employees to estimate municipal service revenue and expenditure increases.
Employees tend to spend less time in the town and therefore place a lower per capita burden on municipal services as compared to residents. In addition, intergovernmental and other municipal revenue sources are often related more directly to resident population than to the number of employees. Based on a large body of practice, each employee is estimated to impose one-third the service burden on one resident. Since residents and employees are accounted for separately with this approach, there is no double counting if the employees also live in the town. Using these factors, the City of Simi Valley had a service population of 141,052 in 2022.
This is based upon a resident population of 126,559 and an employment count of 43,917 in 2023 as estimated by ESRI Business Analyst as shown in Table 4. 2023 - 2043
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area Pipeline
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area1
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area TOTAL
NO SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTION
Housing (units) - 46 800 90 410 220 980 2,500 Condo 200
Apartment 2,070
Below Market Apts (BMR) 2 230
Retail / Restaurant (SF) 991,639 604,271 - (60,400) 75,000 50,000 64,600 Office (SF) 120,075 143,838 - (21,600) 80,000 - 58,400 Industrial (SF) 30,709 248,025 - - - - -
WITH SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTION
Housing (units) - 46 800 120 680 450 1,500 3,550 Condo 320
Apartment 2,907
Below Market Apts (BMR) 2 323
Retail / Restaurant (SF) 991,639 604,271 - (60,400) 120,000 80,000 139,600 Office (SF) 120,075 143,838 - (21,600) 160,000 - 138,400 Industrial (SF) 30,709 248,025 - - - -
DIFFERENCE - FOR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Housing (units) 30 270 230 520 1,050 Condo 20 40 60 120 Apartment 30 222 165 420 837 Below Market Apts (BMR) 2 28 25 40 93 Retail / Restaurant (SF) - - 45,000 30,000 75,000 Office (SF) - - 80,000 - 80,000 Industrial (SF) - - - - - 1 Some demolition of commercial space is assumed in the Tapo Street SP Area during the first decade (2023 to 2033) but this assumption is not parcel specific 2 BMR = Below Market Rate
Source: Existing Data from CoStar and Market Based Projections by Land Econ Group 2023 Existing Inventory
(CoStar) 2023 - 2033 2033 - 2043
7 7
Table 3: Estimated New Population and Employment from Difference in Net New Development with Specific Plan Adoption
Table 4: Estimated Current Demographic Factors in Simi Valley Service Population
Annual Fiscal Impact to General Fund
General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
The detailed methodology used to estimate General Fund revenues and expenditures by line item are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. On the revenue side, Sales and Use Tax, Property Taxes and Property Transfer Taxes are estimated based on the difference in net new development 2023 - 2024
2023-33 2033-43
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area TOTAL
Residential Population Per Unit
Condo 2.6 2.5 0 52 100 150 302
Apartment 2.2 2.2 66 488 363 924 1,841
BMR Apartments 1 2.2 2.2 0 62 55 88 205
Total New Residential Population 66 602 518 1162 2,348
Commercial Employment Per 1,000 SF
Retail / Restaurant (SF) 2.9 2.9 0 0 131 87 218
Office (SF) 3.4 3.4 0 0 272 0 272
Industrial (SF) 1.2 1.2 0 0 0 0 0
Total New Commercial Employment 0 0 403 87 490
1 BMR = Below Market Rate
Source: Land Econ Group
2023 - 2033 2033 - 2043Ratios
Difference in Net New Development
with Specific Plan Adoption
Key Demographic
Characteristics Service Weight Service Population
Population 126,559 1.00 126,559
Households 41,859
Employment 43,917 0.33 14,493
Total Service Population 141,052
Source: Esri Business Analyst 2023; Land Econ Group
8 8
with the adoption of the Specific Plans. Other General Fund line items are estimated based on the service population method.
Table 5: General Fund Revenues and Forecasting Method by Line Item
Table 6: General Fund Expenditures and Forecasting Method by Line Item
General Fund Revenue Amount Method
Gross per Service
Population Fixed Variable
Net per Additional
Service Population
Sales and Use Tax 23,631,522$ Development
Property Taxes / Secured 36,528,137$ Development Franchise Taxes 5,393,386$ Service Population 38.24$ 75% 25% 9.56$ Business Tax Receipts 2,343,050$ Service Population 16.61$ 50% 50% 8.31$ Transient Lodging Taxes 2,026,395$ Service Population 14.37$ 60% 40% 5.75$ Documentary Transfer Tax 1,283,133$ Development 9.10$ 25% 75% 6.82$ Licenses and Permits 5,116,843$ Service Population 36.28$ 50% 50% 18.14$ From Other Governments 483,175$ Not Applicable -- -- -- -- Grants1 350,000$ Service Population 2.48$ 75% 25% 0.62$ Service Charges 1,597,621$ Service Population 11.33$ 40% 60% 6.80$ Fines and Forgeitures 275,599$ Service Population 1.95$ 40% 60% 1.17$ Use of Money and Property (171,102)$ Not Applicable -- -- -- -- Other Revenues2
2,279,942$ Not Applicable -- -- -- --
Partial Revenue Calculation 81,137,701$ 57.16$ 1 Because of large amount of ARPA funds received in 2021 and 2022, we used an amount that is slightly higher than the average of the four years before ARPA 2 Includes contributions and donations such as Meals on Wheels Source: City of Simi Valley Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2021-22, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 and Land Econ Group estimates (See detailed calculation in Table 7)
(See detailed calculation in Table 8)
General Fund Expenditures Amount Method
Gross per Service
Population Fixed Variable
Net per Additional
Service Population
City Administration 4,396,882$ Service Population 31.17$ 90% 10% 3.12$ Attorney 1,172,957$ Service Population 8.32$ 90% 10% 0.83$ Administrative Services and Support 4,321,423$ Service Population 30.64$ 85% 15% 4.60$ Community Services 3,749,095$ Service Population 26.58$ 50% 50% 13.29$ Planning 5,301,683$ Service Population 37.59$ 85% 15% 5.64$ Public Ways and Facilities 15,121,987$ Service Population 107.21$ 85% 15% 16.08$ Public Safety 36,056,175$ Service Population 255.62$ 50% 50% 127.81$ Expenditures Calculation 70,120,202$ 171.37$
Source: City of Simi Valley Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2021-22, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2022 and Land Econ Group estimates 9 9
Sales Tax and Use Tax
Recent sales tax generated will be from spending by the new residents. Sales and Use Tax is derived from sales at retail stores, restaurants, or business-to-business transactions. Based on U.S. Census data for Simi Valley, the per capita retail sales was $16,068 in 2017. LEG applied an annual inflation of 3.5 percent to estimate per capita retail sales by 2033 and 2043. The retails sales figure reported by the U.S. Census also includes sales of non-taxable items, such as groceries and prescription medication. To estimate the sales tax impact on the General Fund, the per capita sales figure was reduced by 15 percent to account for sales of the non-taxable items. The resulting sales generated by the new residents was then multiplied by Simi Valley’s sales tax rate of one percent, as show in Table 7.
By 2043, the Specific Plan areas will have seen more redevelopment of commercial spaces with improvements in the quality of shops, restaurants, and retail clusters. LEG anticipates this will result in some recapture of retail leakage from Simi Valley residents that previously shopped outside the city and induce sales to non-Simi Valley residents. To reflect this, LEG approximated the per capita retail sales would increase by 25 percent in the second decade.
10 10
Table 7: Estimated Sales Tax from Difference in New Resident Population with Specific Plan Adoption
Assessed Value and Property Tax
The assessed values were estimated based upon the value per square foot or per unit from online sources of sales records, such as Zillow and CoStar.
Estimated values and assessed value calculations are detailed in Table 8. Property tax is calculated at one percent of the assessed value. The share of this one percent that is allocated to the City of Simi Valley’s General Fund is 7.14 percent. 2033
Los Angeles Avenue
Specific Plan Area
Tapo Street
Specific Plan Area
Total New Resident Population 66 602
Per Capita Retail Sales1 (Less 15% for non taxable items) 23,681$ 23,681$ Total Taxable Retail Sales by New Residents 1,562,946$ 14,255,962$ Simi Valley Sales Tax Rate 1%
2033 Annual Sales Tax 15,629$ 142,560$
2043
Los Angeles Avenue
Specific Plan Area
Tapo Street
Specific Plan Area
Total New Resident Population 518 1,162
Per Capita Retail Sales1 (Less 15% for non taxable items) 33,405$ 33,405$ + Recapture of Retail Sales Leakage and Induced Sales2 25% 41,756$ 41,756$ Total Taxable Retail Sales by New Residents 21,629,738$ 48,520,763$ Simi Valley Sales Tax Rate 1%
2043 Annual Sales Tax 216,297$ 485,208$
1 Based on Simi Valley retail sales per capita, U.S. Economic Census Data, and calculated at 3.5 percent annual inflation.
Source: Land Econ Group
2 Additional retail sales from recapture of leakage from Simi Valley resident outside SP area and induces sales from non-Simi Valley residents as quality of shops, restaurants and retail cluster improve 11 11
Table 8: Estimated Assessed Value and Property Tax from Difference in Net New Development with Specific Plan Adoption
Property Transfer Tax
Simi Valley has a Documentary Transfer Tax, referred to here as Property Transfer Tax, which applies to the sale of real property at a rate of $0.55 per $1,000 of sales price. New development and changes in land use will generate property transfer tax as properties are sold.
To calculate the annual property transfer tax generated by new development, LEG estimated (Estimates are in Current Year Dollars Using a 3.5% Annual Rate of Inflation) 2033
Value per Unit
or SF (2033) Units or SF
Total Assessed
Value
Gross Property
Tax @ 1% Units or SF
Total Assessed
Value
Gross Property
Tax @ 1%
Residential Units
Condo 930,995$ 0 -$ -$ 20 18,619,904$ 186,199$ Apartment 676,805$ 30 20,304,159$ 203,042$ 222 150,250,773$ 1,502,508$ BMR Apartment 1 406,083$ 0 -$ -$ 28 11,370,329$ 113,703$ Total Residential Units $ 20,304,159 203,042$ $ 180,241,006 1,802,410$ Commercial Employment
Retail / Restaurant (SF) 635$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Demolition of Commercial (SF)2 150$ 0 -$ -$ (82,000) (12,300,000)$ (123,000)$ Office (SF) 705$ 0 -$ -$ 0 -$ -$ Total Commercial -$ -$ (12,300,000)$ (123,000)$ 2033 Annual Gross Property Tax 203,042$ 1,679,410$ 2033 Simi Valley General Fund Share 7.14% 14,497$ 119,910$ 2043
Value per Unit
or SF (2043) Units or SF
Total Assessed
Value
Gross Property
Tax @ 1% Units or SF
Total Assessed
Value
Gross Property
Tax @ 1%
Residential Units
Condo 1,313,261$ 40 52,530,426$ 525,304$ 60 78,795,639$ 787,956$ Apartment 954,701$ 165 157,525,615$ 1,575,256$ 420 400,974,293$ 4,009,743$ BMR Apartment 1 572,820$ 25 14,320,510$ 143,205$ 40 22,912,817$ 229,128$ Total Residential Units $ 224,376,551 2,243,766$ $ 502,682,748 5,026,827$ Commercial Employment
Retail / Restaurant (SF) 895$ 45,000 40,293,224$ 402,932$ 30,000 26,862,150$ 268,621$ Office (SF) 995$ 80,000 79,591,555$ 795,916$ 0 -$ -$ Total Commercial 119,884,779$ 1,198,848$ 26,862,150$ 268,621$ 2033 Annual Gross Property Tax 3,442,613$ 5,295,449$ 2043 Simi Valley General Fund Share 7.14% 245,803$ 378,095$ 1 BMR = Below Market Rate
2 Some demolition of marginal commercial property is assumed to achieve higher density redevelopment in the Tapo Street SP Area during the 2023 to 2033 period Source: Land Econ Group
Difference in Net New Development
with Specific Plan Adoption by 2043
Difference in Net New Development
with Specific Plan Adoption by 2033
Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Area Tapo Street Specific Plan Area Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Area Tapo Street Specific Plan Area 12 12
the average annual turnover for each taxable land use. Residential condominium properties are expected to be sold at an average rate of 14 percent in any given year, or approximately once every seven years. Apartment buildings, commercial retail and office properties are expected to turn over about once every ten years, on average. Based on these assumptions, the additional property transfer taxes generated annually from the adoption of the Specific Plans are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Estimated Property Transfer Tax from Difference in Net New Development with Specific Plan Adoption
Overall General Fund Impacts
The overall annual General Fund impacts for Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street Specific Plan Areas are summarized by major revenue and expenditure line items in Table 10 and Table 11.
The resulting net impacts are summarized in Table 12.
(Estimates are in Current Year Dollars Using a 3.5% Annual Rate of Inflation) Total Assessed
Value (2033)
Avg Annual
% Sold
Amount Subject
to Property
Transfer Tax
Property Transfer
Tax @ $0.55 per
$1,000 of Value
Total Assessed
Value (2033)
Avg Annual
% Sold
Amount Subject
to Property
Transfer Tax
Property Transfer
Tax @ $0.55 per
$1,000 of Value
Residential Units
Condo -$ 14% -$ -$ 18,619,904$ 14% 2,606,787$ 1,434$ Apartment 20,304,159$ 10% 2,030,416$ 1,117$ 150,250,773$ 10% 15,025,077$ 8,264$ BMR Apartment 1 -$ -$ -$ 11,370,329$ -$ -$ Total Residential Units 20,304,159$ $ 2,030,416 1,117$ 180,241,006$ $ 17,631,864 9,698$ Commercial Employment
Retail / Restaurant (SF) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ Office (SF) -$ 10% -$ -$ -$ 10% -$ -$ Total Commercial 2 -$ -$ -$ (12,300,000)$ -$ -$ 2033 Annual Property Transfer Tax 1,117$ 9,698$ Total Assessed
Value (2043)
Avg Annual
% Sold
Amount Subject
to Property
Transfer Tax
Property Transfer
Tax @ $0.55 per
$1,000 of Value
Total Assessed
Value (2043)
Avg Annual
% Sold
Amount Subject
to Property
Transfer Tax
Property Transfer
Tax @ $0.55 per
$1,000 of Value
Residential Units
Condo 52,530,426$ 14% 7,354,260$ 4,045$ 78,795,639$ 14% 11,031,389$ 6,067$ Apartment 157,525,615$ 10% 15,752,561$ 8,664$ 400,974,293$ 10% 40,097,429$ 22,054$ BMR Apartment 1 14,320,510$ -$ -$ 22,912,817$ -$ -$ Total Residential Units 224,376,551$ $ 23,106,821 12,709$ 502,682,748$ $ 51,128,819 28,121$ Commercial Employment
Retail / Restaurant (SF) 40,293,224$ 10% 4,029,322$ 2,216$ 26,862,150$ 10% 2,686,215$ 1,477$ Office (SF) 79,591,555$ 10% 7,959,155$ 4,378$ -$ 10% -$ -$ Total Commercial 119,884,779$ 11,988,478$ 6,594$ 26,862,150$ 2,686,215$ 1,477$ 2043 Annual Property Transfer Tax 19,302$ 29,598$ 1 BMR = Below Market Rate
2 Some demolition of marginal commercial property is assumed to achieve higher density redevelopment in the Tapo Street SP Area during the 2023 to 2033 period Source: Land Econ Group
Difference in Net New Development
with Specific Plan Adoption by 2043
Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Area Tapo Street Specific Plan Area Difference in Net New Development
with Specific Plan Adoption by 2033
Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Area Tapo Street Specific Plan Area
13 13
Table 10: General Fund Revenues Impact from Difference in Development with Specific Plan Adoption, 2033 & 2043
Table 11: General Fund Expenditures Impact from Difference in Development with Specific Plan Adoption, 2033 & 2043
General Fund Revenue
Net per Add'tl
Service
Population1
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area
Net per Add'tl
Service
Population1
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area
New Service Population 66 602 518 1,162
Sales and Use Tax -- 15,629$ 142,560$ -- 216,297$ 485,208$ Property Taxes / Secured -- 14,497$ 119,910$ -- 245,803$ 378,095$ Franchise Taxes 13.96$ 921$ 8,402$ 19.69$ 10,198$ 22,876$ Business Tax Receipts 12.13$ 800$ 7,300$ 17.10$ 8,860$ 19,876$ Transient Lodging Taxes 5.75$ 379$ 3,459$ 5.75$ 2,977$ 6,677$ Documentary Transfer Tax -- 1,117$ 9,698$ -- 19,302$ 29,598$ Licenses and Permits 26.48$ 1,748$ 15,942$ 37.35$ 19,350$ 43,406$ From Other Governments -- -- -- -- -- --
Grants 0.62$ 41$ 373$ 0.62$ 321$ 721$ Service Charges 6.80$ 449$ 4,091$ 6.80$ 3,520$ 7,897$ Fines and Forgeitures 1.17$ 77$ 706$ 1.17$ 607$ 1,362$ Use of Money and Property -- -- -- -- -- --
Other Revenues -- -$ -$ -- -$ -$ Total Revenues 35,659$ 312,440$ 527,236$ 995,716$ Source: Land Econ Group
2033 2043
1 Net per additional service population estimates are in nominal current year dollars using a 3.5% annual rate of inflation from Land Econ Group estimates for 2022, as shown in Table 5.
General Fund Expenditures
Net per Add'tl
Service
Population1
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area
Net per Add'tl
Service
Population1
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area
New Service Population 66 602 518 1,162
City Administration 4.55$ 300$ 2,740$ 6.42$ 3,325$ 7,460$ Attorney 1.21$ 80$ 731$ 1.71$ 887$ 1,990$ Administrative Services and Support 6.71$ 443$ 4,039$ 9.46$ 4,902$ 10,997$ Community Services 19.40$ 1,281$ 11,680$ 27.37$ 14,177$ 31,803$ Planning 8.23$ 543$ 4,955$ 11.61$ 6,015$ 13,492$ Public Ways and Facilities 23.48$ 1,550$ 14,134$ 33.12$ 17,155$ 38,484$ Public Safety 186.60$ 12,316$ 112,334$ 263.22$ 136,348$ 305,862$ Total Expenditures 16,512$ 150,613$ 182,810$ 410,088$ Source: Land Econ Group
2033 2043
1 Net per additional service population estimates are in nominal current year dollars using a 3.5% annual rate of inflation from Land Econ Group estimates for 2022, as shown in Table 6.
14 14
Table 12: Summary of Fiscal Impact from Difference in Net New Development with Specific Plan Adoption, 2033 & 2043
Conclusion
The net present value of 20 years of projected fiscal surplus for the General Fund amounts to $3.73 million. This net present value calculation is based upon an inflation forecast of 3.5 percent annually for the next 20 years and a discount rate of 4 percent over this period. In addition, the value of other properties around the new developments are likely to grow. As the properties turn over, their assessed value will increase significantly and generate additional property tax revenue. The new residential development will likely induce new retail and restaurant development from both new construction and renovation of existing buildings.
Because of the challenges of estimating this secondary effect, it has not been included in this fiscal analysis. For this reason, this direct fiscal impact analysis likely understates the overall revenue impact on the City's General Fund.
The increase in housing development provides important social benefits as well. Employees who work in Simi Valley, like teachers, fire fighters and workers in the newly development industrial and warehousing buildings will have a better opportunity to find suitable housing locally and thereby reducing commute distances and time related stress on family life. In addition, the future generations of long-standing Simi Valley families will enjoy more local housing options.
Annual Impact
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area Total
Los Angeles Ave
SP Area
Tapo Street
SP Area Total
Estimated General Fund Revenue Impact 35,659$ 312,440$ 348,099$ 527,236$ 995,716$ 1,522,951$ Estimated Gerenal Fund Expenditure Impact (16,512)$ (150,613)$ (167,126)$ (182,810)$ (410,088)$ (592,898)$ Net City of Simi Valley General Fund Impact 19,146$ 161,826$ 180,973$ 344,425$ 585,628$ 930,053$ Net Present Value of Cumulative Fiscal Impact from 2023 to 2043* $3,727,498 * A 4% annual discount rate was applied. The Wall Street Journal Muni Master Rate on August 17, 2023 was 3.462% Source: Land Econ Group
2033 2043
15 NC 5/08-24(dsf)
Development Review Summary
Ne
ighborhood Council Nos: 3, 4, 1, and 2
NC Me
eting Dates: July 11 and 16, 2024 and August 8 and 13, 2024 Pr
oject Description: Recommendation to the Planning Commission on the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map and related General Plan text; a Zone Change to amend affected zoning maps, and
Development Code Amendment to remove the Tapo Area
Planning and Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay Districts; and the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application Case
Planner: Naren Gunasekera
Ne
ighborhood Council 3
Meeting Date: July 11, 2024
Au
dience members asked questions and comments relating to: Opposition for the Envision Simi Specific Plan, current commercial vacancy rates, rejected business permits, current street deterioration, and possibility of one way streets. A resident emailed a public statement in opposition to the proposed Envision Specific Plan. Printed correspondence was distributed to the Executive Board and attending public. Statement is attached to the report.
Ci
ty staff responded to the above questions as follows: City Staff showed a visual of 2024 Year to Date (YTD) commercial vacancy rates at 8.9%. Not every shopping center is vacant for the same reasons. City has not considered one way streets.
Execu
tive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to:
Reasons behind the City’s desire for certain area developments, City’s initial investment in development, support of housing before commercial development, state driven initiatives, State’s ability to override the City, opposition to four story buildings, height restrictions due to land size, setbacks, step backs, waivers, incentives for developers, definition of high density housing, current waitlist for businesses, street deterioration concerns, freeway and street congestion concerns, objection to lane closure on East Los Angeles Avenue, infrastructure, parking structures, current commercial vacancy rates, mixed-use planning for parking, state mandated parking requirements, Simi Valley Bicycle
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS
ATTACHMENT B
16 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
2 NC 5/08-24(dsf)
Master Plan and road deterioration considerations, simplified General Plan considerations, support for pedes trian friendly infrastructure, support for setbacks and recessed design, recommendation for City staff to study Thousand Oaks green painted bike lanes, bicycle/car collisions, concern Envision Specific Plan does not go far enough to encourage development, conditional use permitting process, permits for businesses that serve alcohol, future of current developments in the Specific Plan areas, statements the Envision Specific Plans feels like the San Fernando Valley, statements in support for the love of Simi Valley as it is now and protection of small town feel, Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District’s role in the Envision Plan, and uses of State representatives.
City staff responded to the above questions as follows: The City secured state grants to assist local governments to update their planning documents and implement process improvements that will facilitate the acceleration of housing production. The State mandates a certain number of houses to be built and offers density bonuses for affordable housing. High density is defined as a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. The City prioritizes progress, not stagnation, promotes jobs and housing. Very rarely does the City make the initial investment. The City aims to expand housing capabilities, with staff, Naren Gunasekera, presenting visuals for population and vacancy. Four -story mixed -use buildings are allowed in mixed -use zoning. Affordable housing alternatives are limited.
Housing and development are developer driven. Without standards, developers tend to do the minimum. The specific plan aims to counteract minimal compliance. The City offers developers incentives and community benefit bonuses. There is low risk for vacancy if the developer proceeds. Vacancies are in the older commercial shopping malls. Parking requirements are future oriented. Shared parking for mixed-use will have legal agreements.
Gas stations and businesses serving alcohol are Conditional Use Permitted developments.
Current applications are grandfathered in. Businesses and housing already in the specific plan area will be grandfathered in. The City is trying to improve housing and mobility. The General Plan, including the Land Use Section, is available on the City’s website. There is no State repayment obligation if the plan is rejected. Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District was included in the stakeholder’s meetings. City Council collaborates with representatives and lobbyists.
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Steven Baker and seconded by Andy Goitia:
MOTION: Recommendation to reject the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map and related General Plan text; a Zone Change to amend affected zoning maps, and
Development Code Amendment to re move the Tapo Area Planning and Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay Districts; and the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application citing concerns with building heights over three stories, requirements for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) , and impact on traffic and walkability, specifically, increasing traffic due to losing a lane on East Los Angeles Avenue.
17 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
3 NC 5/08-24(dsf)
Executive Board vote: 10 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Audience vote: 2 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried.
Neighborhood Council 4
Meeting Date: July 16, 2024
Audience members asked questions and comments relating to: Incentives to fill commercial space, a potential Metrolink station near Madera Road or First Street, and support for comments made during the 2022 stakeholder meetings in the current Envision Specific Plan.
City staff responded to the above questions as follows: Discussions are ongoing for an additional Metrolink stop. The City supports increased ridership and more housing near the current Metrolink stop.
Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to:
Commercial and housing vacancy rates , setbacks, ADA compliance , bike paths and bike/car collisions, intent for bicycle lanes (recreation or commuting), concerns over lane loss on East Los Angeles Avenue, pedestrians safety in the Envision Specific Plan, public charging stations, downtown trolley, North/South connections to the Arroyo Simi Greenway, parking underestimation, disapproval of Alamo Street four-story construction, mixed-use possibilities for Simi Town Center, planning commission date and timeline for Envision Specific Plan, and grandfathering of current commercial/residential tenants.
City staff responded to the above questions as follows:
Simi Valley has a 2.9% housing vacancy rate, indicating a housing crisis. Incentives are available for updating old shopping centers. Setbacks are flexible. All new developments will comply with Green building codes and ADA requirements. The Envision Specific Plan for Mobility addresses the next few decades, encouraging shared parking and adapting to changes like autonomous cars and e- bikes. Objective design standards will be updated under the Envision Specific Plan. P roperties within the Plan’s area are grandfathered in.
Grocery Stores are allowed in the Downtown and Tapo mixed-use areas, with conditional use permits required for extended hours. Public charging stations are located at Target on Tierra Rejada Road, Sycamore Square on Cochran, Holiday Inn Express on Erringer, Simi Valley Senior Center, and Simi Valley Police Department . The Simi Valley Town Center aims to encourage local shopping, provide local employment and sales tax revenue, and create a focal point within the community. The Envision Specific Plan is tentatively scheduled to go to Planning Commission on September 4, 2024. City Council rejected the Alamo Apartments development three times before developer appealed to the State. The City cannot predict the development timeline as the Plan serves as a framework.
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Tracy Bodis and seconded by Karen Diem:
18 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
4 NC 5/08-24(dsf)
MOTION: Recommendation to approve the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map and related General Plan text; a Zone Change to amend affected zoning maps, and
Development Code Amendment to remove the Tapo Area Planning and Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay Districts; and the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application citing comments or revisions to consider 15 foot setback near single- family residences , d evelop hillsides not just valley floor, offer incentives for charging stations, do not extend Specific Plan beyond First Street toward Sinaloa Street , address c oncerns about increased traffic due to bike lane implementation, evaluate potential bike/car conflict, and continually assess the mobility chapter, focusing on parking and traffic.
Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Audience vote: 0 Ayes; 0 Noes; 3 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried unanimously.
Neighborhood Council 1
Meeting Date: August 8, 2024
Audience members asked questions and comments relating to: Fire department readiness for four-story buildings, adequacy of setbacks for fire trucks, street access for fire trucks, infrastructure concerns, water supply and utilities, traffic studies and exemplary mobility models, Simi Valley Town Center plans, additional Metrolink station(s), and potential relocation of the current Metrolink station.
City staff responded to the above question as follows: The fire department is involved early in the planning process and must approve projects before they proceed.
Infrastructure is thoroughly addressed, with Tapo Street and East Los Angeles Avenue selected due to adequate infrastructure, including water, electricity, and sewer capacity.
The Envision Specific Plan includes an Environmental Impact Report focused on impact of possible development. Public Works evaluates each project within the broader city context and specific details. Traffic studies are conducted locally and are continually looked at over time. The Simi Valley Town Center has an existing Specific Plan, and maintaining it is crucial for generating sales tax to fund services. A mix of housing and commercial spaces will help boost sales tax revenue and help pay for services. The City’s Housing Element prioritizes housing, with a focus on higher density developments near transit.
Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to:
Support for outdoor dining and encouraging local dining expenditures, concern for housing and entertainment for the younger generation , regional and local traffic studies, timeline of traffic studies, parking requirements and concerns, residential percentages in nearby 19 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
5 NC 5/08-24(dsf)
cities, incentives for developers, Santa Susana Plaza development timeline, support for a trolley system, Simi Valley Town Center Specific Plan, turn signals at Tapo Street and Alamo Street, bike paths or easy transportation from Patricia Street and Heywood Street to Simi Valley Town Center , missing bathroom at Metrolink Station, City parking structures, moving Civic Center transit hub, north/south bike paths, and E-bikes.
City staff responded to the above questions as follows: The City encourages residents to eat and shop locally. Parking requirements for restaurants are being reduced, encouraging shared parking. The Housing Element is updated every seven to eight years to comply with state mandates for affordable housing. The City is encouraging mixed-use development to make affordable housing for the workforce at lower incomes. Under state law, the City offers developers incentives and community benefit bonuses in exchange for density bonuses . There’s a focus on subdividing large commercial areas for smaller commercial footprints to maximize the use of commercial space and tailor to changes in the economy. The Santa Susana Plaza development at Cochran Street and Tapo Street is currently in the permitting phase. The City supports shared parking arrangements in mixed-use area. Developer contributions will fund the installation of turn signals at the corner of Tapo Street and Alamo Street, along with repainting crosswalks and lane lines.
The City su pports increased housing near the Metrolink station, considering potential developer partnerships for projects including housing and commercial spaces like a coffee shop near Metrolink station, and other opportunities to increase public and shared transit ridership. Trolley and bike paths from Patricia Street and Heywood Street to Simi Valley Town Center is a good idea. The City does not own property or have the financial resources to build parking structures but is encouraging shared parking solutions. Shared parking for mixed- use will be documented through reciprocal parking agreements. The City is updating the Bicycle Master Plan to enhance bike infrastructure. Envision Specific Plan is a long-term framework. The City needs to have a plan to experiment and receive grant money for complete streets that work for all residents using cars, bikes, buses, rails, and pedestrians.
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Suzanne Thuotte and seconded by Moses Amoghlian:
MOTION: Recommendation to approve the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map and related General Plan text; a Zone Change to amend affected zoning maps, and
Development Code Amendment to remove the Tapo Area Planning and Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay Districts; and the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application citing comments or revisions to consider keeping two lanes on Tapo Street, move bus hub to more dense area, consider a parking structure, consider a trolley, and add north/south bike paths.
20 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
6 NC 5/08-24(dsf)
Executive Board vote: 9 Ayes; 1 No; 2 Abstentions
Audience vote: 4 Ayes; 0 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried.
Neighborhood Council 2
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Audience members asked questions and comments relating to: Opposition to removing traffic lanes, concerns about car restrictions, support for safer ped estrian and bicyclist pathways, the need for better transit options and quicker bus routes to Moorpark College, relocation of Metrolink station to First Street, and concerns that the industrial area near Metrolink was not zoned for housing.
City staff responded to the above question as follows: Envision is a 30 -year plan.
Any removal of traffic lanes would be gradual, subject to studies , and potentially testing first. The City is not restricting cars or discouraging driving, but aims to create a community-oriented downtown, modeled after areas like downtown Ventura. Tapo Street is being considered for lane reduction to develop a historic downtown with outdoor dining while enhancing pedestrian safety. Adding a second Metrolink Stop in Simi Valley is part of the Envision Plan phased implementation. First Street would be an ideal location for a Metrolink Station, and discussions with the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) are ongoing.
Executive Board members asked questions and made comments relating to:
Concerns include traffic, City population decline, closure of hospital maternity ward, high retail vacancies , increased density with restrictive parking, zoning for high density residential areas, eminent domain, and water resources. Support is expressed for Envision Specific Plan and reversing urban sprawl, mixed-use areas for reducing crime, a downtown main street with a small town feel similar to Ventura, aid for restaurants, a City parking structure for revenue, building articulation, objective design standards, affordable housing near transit and communal spaces, and the community focus of the plan.
Opposition include losing a traffic lane, increased density with restrictive parking , State and City requirements for Table 7, page 22 and Table 8, page 23 of the Development Project Overview, concern for small businesses at Santa Susana Plaza , economic revenue,
comment that parking and car rights fear not supported by amount of empty parking lots across City.
City staff responded to the above questions as follows: The California Lutheran University Center (CLUC) for Economic Research and Forecasting found that people leaving Ventura County, including Simi Valley, tend to be young and near the middle of the income distribution. The trend is partly due to limited amenities for young professionals, and strong retail competition from surrounding cities , as identified in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan. According to Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data, median home prices in Simi Valley have increased significantly from $605,000 in 2020 to $849,000 in 2024, a 40% rise. The City does not own property or have the financial resources to build parking structures . Instead, it is encouraging shared parking solutions. The City is not restricting parking. The current parking standards are the minimum required by the 21 NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY
7 NC 5/08-24(dsf)
State. Developers are responsible for determining the amount of parking for their projects, provided they meet the minimum standards. The Envision ar eas have been zoned for mixed-use for years, with few parcels available on Tapo Street and East Los Angeles Avenue. The market has been slow, with only one new project at Cochran Street and Tapo Street; the Santa Susana Plaza development is currently in the permitting phase. The City aims to create development hot spots to spur economic growth within this 30- year plan.
The City does not use eminent domain under the Envision Simi Specific Plan. The economic study completed for the Envision Plan was conservative, based on the assumption that only 20% of the Envision Area would be developed. Developers will be charged for upgrading water infrastructure for their projects. The City aims to preserve hillsides, avoid encroaching on single family zoning, and provide housing for the lower income worker such as grocery store employees, fire fighters and teachers. The Envision Specific Plan encourages developers to create more articulated, aesthetically pleasing buildings. Table 7, page 22 of the Development Project Overview is a state minimum requirement. Table 8, page 23 of the Development Project Overview is a City requirement.
Upon conclusion of the discussion, the following motion was made by Pete Stong and seconded by Satish Shah:
MOTION: Recommendation to approve Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan, to create a community vision for the development of areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including the provision of new housing, commercial, and recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map and related General Plan text; a Zone Change to amend affected zoning maps, and
Development Code Amendment to remove the Tapo Area Planning and Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay Districts; and the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the subject application.
Executive Board vote: 6 Ayes; 2 Noes; 0 Abstentions
Audience vote: 2 Ayes; 1 No; 0 Abstentions
Unincorporated Area vote: None
The motion carried.
22 Neighborhood Council #3
Executive Board
Simi Valley City Hall
2929 Tapo Canyon Road
Simi Valley, CA 93063
Re: Agenda Item No. 7a(Recommendation to the Planning
Commission on the Envision Simi Valley Specific Plan,
to create a community vision for the development of
areas of Los Angeles Avenue and Tapo Street, including
the provision of new housing, commercial, and
recreational opportunities; a General Plan Amendment
to amend the Land Use Map and related General Plan
text; a Zone Change to amend affected zoning maps,
and Development Code Amendment to remove the Tapo
Area Planning and Los Angeles Avenue Planning
Overlay District; and the adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration(MND) and Mitigation Monitoring
Plan for the subject application).
Dear Members of the Executive Board:
Though I did not attend the Community Workshops, I have visited the designated City website’s Envision Simi Valley web page, and read the Existing Conditions Report(March 2022), and Land Use Concepts Report(July 2022), as well as the draft Plan in your packet. While all of these plans are well compiled, and present a wonderful environment
and delightful vision, I have concerns.
Back in the 1990s, I addressed the Simi Valley Community Development Agency’s
Community Development Project Areas.
Redevelopment was new to me; planning for vacant parcels and blighted conditions, but the City taking on debt? I participated in the process because when I read the draft Plan for the CDA’s Merged Tapo Canyon|West End Community Development Project Area, I was stunned to see that a road was depited from Cochran Street to Apricot Road! This was going to impact a friend’s property! I met with City staff regarding my concerns, and was told no such road would
be in the Plan. Years later, researching property taxes 23 2
pass through and residual taxing entities’ and City’s shares from the Ventura County Auditor-Controller’s Office’s
website, I learned about other Project Areas:
1. Simi Valley West End 8936(Agreements)
2. Simi Tapo Canyon 8937(Agreements)
3. Simi Valley West End Anx 85 8939(Agreements)
4. Simi Tapo Anx 85 8940(Agreements)
5. Madera Royale Simi 8945(Agreements)
6. Simi West End Anx 2 8949(Agreements)
7. Simi Tapo Anx 3 8951(Agreements)
8. Simi Tapo West End Merge 8961.
Among the property taxing entities that benefit from the Special District pass through and residual funds are:
1. Rancho Simi Rec and Park
2. El Rancho Simi Pioneer Cemetery
3. Calleguas Municipal Water District
4. Metropolitan Water Bond
Members of the Executive Board, within the past 2 years, I learned about the Commercial Development Project Area that was added to the Merged Tapo|West End Community
Development Project Area that was approved by the City
Council in 2011. Just yesterday, I learned that the term of this redevelopment plan is for 45 years!
Members of the Executive Board, the boundaries for the
Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Area, and the Tapo Street Specific Plan Area look very familiar! I have searched the City’s website, and have googled the Merged Tapo Canyon| West End Community Development Project Area looking for a map, but have come up empty. It would be most helpful
for City staff, or the consultant to provide maps for this Project Area, and the added Commercial area.
24 3
1. Are the mapped areas for the Los Angeles Avenue
Corridor, and the Tapo Street Area part of the
Merged Tapo Canyon|West End Community Project
Area, or the Project Area with the Commercial
aspect, or both?
2. Will the proposed Specific Plans impact the
Merged Tapo Canyon|West End Community Development
Project Area, the Merged Commercial Tapo|West End
Community Development Project Area, and the areas
of other Community Development Project Areas for
which there are “agreements”? If so, how?
3. Will the property taxing entities funding be
impacted?
Members of the Executive Board, it was difficult to
keep track of the Los Angeles Avenue related text in the draft Plan in your packet because there were references to the Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay(LAAPO), and Los Angeles Avenue Corridor. In other text references are
made to the Los Angeles Avenue Specific Plan Area, and the Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Area. I also did not find any information regarding the TAPO, and the LAAPO; this information is found in the March 18, 2022
Existing Conditions Report. The reader, and legislative body(Executive Board) should not have to cross-reference documents in order to get a complete picture of what is being presented, and proposed.
Members of the Executive Board, I am opposed to the
Envision Simi Valley proposal for the following reasons:
#1 - The Tapo Area Planning and Los Angeles Avenue
Planning Overlay District is proposed.
#2 - The Mixed-Use Overlay will be removed from the
Specific Plan Area.
#3 - On Page 134 of the draft Plan it is stated in
Table 6.4: Implementation Strategies, under
Value Creation and Capture - Create funding
streams for future improvements, that “Explore
the potential of a tax increment financing
tool, such as an EIFD, around the study area
to support broader infrastructure needs and
affordable housing. An enhanced infrastructure
25 4
financing district(EIFD) will increase funds
over time by capturing the tax increment gained
from increased property values. This tax
increment will be separately allocated from the
General Fund to be used toward a specific set of
capital investments that support long-term goals
listed in Chapter 1.0 of the Specific Plan.”
For 30+ years, I have followed the City’s annual
budgets, and have learned that projects funded
through the General Fund do not always end up
being funded through this revenue source; other
revenue sources are used to pick up the tab!
#4 - On Page 6, under Relationship to Other Plans,
second paragraph, it is stated that “This
Specific Plan wholly replaces the Tapo Area
Planning Overlay(Tapo) District and the Los
Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay(LAAPO) District
and supersedes the provisions of other
overlapping districts and underlying zoning
designations.”
#5 - It is mindboggling, and unnerving that once
again the Simi Valley Municipal Code is
mentioned yet while so many sections have
been updated the SVMC Title 4, PUBLIC SAFETY
Chapter 5(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS), and
Chapter 6(FIRE PREVENTION) to date have not; I
made my first request on October 16, 2020 in
an email to the City Council, and ever since.
#6 - Page 28, under General Plan Amendments/Zone
Change/Zone Text Updates, first paragraph, it
is stated “The allowable Levels of Service
within commercial areas will also need to be
updated as some elements of the Mobility Plan
for the Specific Plan that involve repurposing
lanes may result in Levels of Service below
current levels laid in the General Plan.
It is stated on Page 26, second paragraph, under Los
Angeles Avenue Corridor, that “...all parcels are within the LAAPO(Los Angeles Avenue Corridor Overlay) overlay
district. LAAPO stands for Los Angeles Avenue Planning Overlay. Change LAAPO to LAACO, or change the district’s name to reflect the abbreviation/initialism.
26 5
Include the year that the Tapo Area Planning and Los
Angeles Planning Overlay District(Agenda Item’s Subject/ Title) was formed as done for the Citywide Design
Guidelines, and the Landscape Design Guidelines(Page 6).
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
1. Will the final plan have a cover page?
2. Will the final Plan have a Table of Contents?
Members of the Executive Board, I commend everybody
that has participated in this great undertaking because I know what all is involved. It was an honor for me to have addressed and participated in the City’s “Vision 2020 SEEDS for the Future”, and its Implementation Plan; vital documents which are no longer found on the City’s Search area, or online. Hope the City has a copy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Teresa Jordan
27